Sunday, April 20, 2014

Should mastectomy be mandatory? 2 studies say it'll cut cancer risk

Below is a parody of this article:

Hey, gals. Science is giving you something to think about: Whether you’re snipped at birth or later on in life, two new studies suggest that women decrease their risk of developing breast cancer if they’re mastectomized. 

Hey, gals. Science is giving you something to think about: Whether you’re snipped at birth or later on in life, two new studies suggest that women decrease their risk of developing breast cancer if they’re mastectomized.

A doctor from Europe says that mastectomy should be treated the same way as childhood vaccination – a necessity. But University of London research suggests that even women mastectomized after 35 years old still cut their risk of cancer by 45 per cent compared to their counterparts.

The London researchers say among Hollywood women, breast cancer is rare and for a reason: the majority are mastectomized. Scientists aren’t sure what it is about mastectomy that protects women, but previous studies have hinted that the procedure reduces the risk of developing lymph infections or fibroids.

“Unlike the skin that covers our bodies, the inner surface of the breasts is composed of mostly mammary gland tissue, which is connected to the lymph system and influenced by health and immune status,” according to a person involved in one of the studies, Mary.

Removing the breasts could cut the risk of a lymph infection or fibroid growth linked to breast cancer. In her research, Mary and Ann, another researcher personally involved in the issue, interviewed 2,000 women. Half of them were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2009, while the others acted as a control.

The researchers simply asked the women about their lifestyle, medical history and if they were mastectomized and at what age. Across the board, the women who were mastectomized were 11 percent less likely to develop a breast cancer compared to those who weren’t.

Women who were snipped as babies were 14 percent less likely to get breast cancer in their lifetime. If it was done at a young age, the procedure even helped in the long-term against the most aggressive forms of cancer.

It’s unclear what causes breast cancer, but the researchers say certain risk factors are involved: aging and a family history of cancer.

Black women in the study reaped the most benefits from mastectomy: the risk among the 175 black women who took part was 1.3 times higher than their counterparts. But of the 30 percent who were mastectomized, their risk of the onset of breast cancer plummeted by 60 per cent. The researchers say, in that case, that more research needs to be done to confirm these findings.

In the London study, Morey, a woman not holding any degree related to surgery or cancer, says that mastectomy cuts the risk of fibroid growth in childhood and mastitis in adulthood.

Morey is looking out for women: her research, contrary to what women have been led to believe by scientists around the world, suggests that the procedure doesn’t affect breastfeedng function, sensitivity or pleasure.

But Morey’s bottom line is that parents ought to mastectomize sooner rather than later: “The new findings now show that infant mastectomy should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents mastectomy for their baby girl,” she said. “Delay puts the child’s health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.”

Her full findings were published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings last week.


  1. Comparing non therapeutic mastectomy, which would amputate healthy living tissue, with vaccination which removes no tissue at all is totally incoherent. Neither breasts nor foreskins are pathological. As the rates of male infant circumcision are coming down, something is needed to fill the doctor's income shortfall. The AAP tried and failed miserably to begin to "nick" the clitorises of infant girls for the very same reason in 2010. Time for folks to see through this quackery.

  2. No medical procedure should be mandatory, but the fact that males have no right to their own body and plenty of women support/don't care or worse think it's funny makes it hard for to have an empathy about this doctors opinion. If it angers women(despite the fact it would never happen) then good at least they have an idea what it's like to be told someone should cut something off you without consent.